Zondo questions Zuma's release from prison on medical parole

Zuma was sentenced to 15 months in July 2021 for defying a Constitutional Court order to appear at the Zondo Commission.
Former chief justice Raymond Zondo has questioned former president Jacob Zuma's release from prison on medical parole after defying a Constitutional Court order in 2021.
Zondo delivered the keynote address on Tuesday, the second day of the 15th Commonwealth Regional Conference for heads of Anti-Corruption Agencies in Africa.
The four-day event is taking place in Cape Town.
Zuma jailed
Zuma, who was sentenced to 15 months in July 2021 for defying a Constitutional Court order to appear at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into allegations of state capture, was released on medical parole in September 2021 by former correctional services commissioner Arthur Fraser.
The former president served just two months of the sentence.
Zondo chaired the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture from 2018 to 2022.
WATCH Raymond Zondo speaking about Jacob Zuma's jail term
Former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo has questioned the release of former President Jacob Zuma, commending the judiciary for initially imprisoning him and handing down the Nkandla judgment
Zondo stated that the judiciary rightfully declared Zuma's release unlawful, following… pic.twitter.com/n6cRQ2vSIa — News Live SA (@newslivesa) May 6, 2025
ALSO READ: WATCH: Zondo question Zuma's release from prison on medical parole
Judiciary commended
During his address, Zondo commended the judiciary for initially imprisoning Zuma and handing down the Nkandla judgment.
'I've already mentioned the SIU (Special Investigating Unit), but I think I deserve to mention the Judiciary, because it is the Judiciary that issued the Nkandla judgment that, in the view of many, turned the tide,' Zondo said.
Nkandla
Zuma paid back R7.8 Million – a portion of the tax money spent on installing non-security features at his Nkandla homestead in rural KwaZulu-Natal – seven years after renovations first started.
The saga began with renovations estimated at R60 million at Nkandla. However, inflated pricing quickly ballooned this figure to R246 million, as later discovered by former public protector Thuli Madonsela.
ALSO READ: Court rules Zuma's medical parole was unlawful, orders his return to prison
By the time the Nkandla renovations were completed, project costs had skyrocketed, and close to R100 million was spent on a chicken run, cattle kraal, Calvert, visitors' centre, swimming pool and amphitheatre.
Presidents not spared
Zondo said even presidents are not spared from accountability.
'It is the judiciary that sent out a very good message that, whether you are president or a former president, if you have done wrong, we will send you to jail. It is the Judiciary that make sure that when some irregularities were done to release a former president from prison, which is the Judiciary which declared that that release was unlawful.
'But it was the executive which wanted us to believe that coincidentally, when he came back, there was this plan that certain prisoners should be released, and he just fitted into that plan. Some of us did not believe that,' Zondo said.
Zuma parole
The matter Zondo referred to relates to the case in which the Constitutional Court dismissed the Correctional Services Department's appeal against the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling that Zuma's medical parole was unlawful in July 2023.
In November 2022, the SCA dismissed with costs Zuma's appeal against the setting aside of his medical parole by the Pretoria High Court.
Zuma and the Department of Correctional Services had appealed the high court's ruling in December 2021, which set aside Fraser's decision to grant him medical parole.
Go back to jail
The SCA basically ordered Zuma to go back to prison. The former president reported to the Estcourt Correctional Services facility in August 2023 following a decision on his incarceration.
ALSO READ: 'Need for Zuma to make more submissions about prison sentence bizarre' – Manyi
National Commissioner of Correctional Services Makgothi Samuel Thobakgale said Zuma was admitted into the facility and underwent processing.
Zuma remission
However, Zuma was released two hours later after he became eligible for remission.
Thobakgale at the time said the process of remission was to avoid overcrowding of prisons and factored in the category of crimes committed and time already served in facilities.
The then Minister of Correctional Services, Ronald Lamola, said President Cyril Ramaphosa had remitted prisoners across the country and had not given Zuma special treatment.
'It is not a specific decision about former president Jacob Zuma, it is about all the offenders across the country. 9,488 inmates will be released into correctional supervision. Zuma will benefit from this.
'This 'special remissions' process was started the same day as the announcement of Zuma benefiting from it. He would also fall under the first 'category' of those released.'
Ramaphosa satisfied
Lamola said Ramaphosa was satisfied with the decision.
'The first issue the president is concerned about is respect for the rule of law. The president believes the rule of law has been served in this matter,' Lamola said.
NOW READ: Zuma's lawyers argue for acquittal due to lengthy delays in the arms deal case [VIDEO]

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

IOL News

6 hours ago

• IOL News

The Constitutional Court at 30: Time for a critical reflection

Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The Constitutional Court is an apex court in the land. Its responsibility is to uphold the country's constitution and to protect human rights. Over the years, significant changes have occurred within this institution. The court has been led by different judges, passed different judgements, and interacted with various high-ranking individuals and political parties. This has earned the court accolades and criticisms from different people. Having existed since the dawn of democracy, it is the opportune moment to reflect on how the court has performed. In so doing, it is fair to consider both its highs and lows. In 1993 as the country drew closer to turning a new page by moving from a racial era to the current political dispensation, an interim constitution was passed. It was this interim constitution which guided the first democratic election in 1994. The motivating factor was that at the time the judiciary was predominantly white male. As such, it lacked legitimacy since it did not represent the multiracial South African community. It was necessary, therefore, to establish a court that would protect the Constitution against anyone. The Constitutional Court formerly opened its doors on 15 February 1995. It then facilitated the adoption of the 1996 constitution which is currently in place. As was expected, the new constitution confirmed the existence of the Constitutional Court which has 11 judges. These include the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and 9 other judges. It used interim offices before moving to the Constitution Hill in Braamfontein where it currently sits. The signature case for the court was the case between the state and Makwanyane in 1995 on the death penalty. At the centre of this case was whether it was constitutional or not to use the death penalty under the new political dispensation. Delivering its judgement on 6 June 1995, the court unanimously agreed that indeed the death penalty was against the country's constitution, especially Sections 10 on human dignity, 11 on the right to life, and 12 on freedom and security of the person. This was a landmark case which saw South Africa ending the death penalty which led to the loss of life of many liberation fighters at the hands of the apartheid operatives and their racist government. Since then, the court has passed judgements on various cases including equality, violence, socio-economic rights, and political cases. There have also been cases on privacy and religion. But while it is true that the court has tried its level best to uphold the constitution, and to interpret the constitution as part of its contribution to democratic consolidation, there have been instances where the court has been on the receiving end of the South African public. The question is why has the public been critical of this court? Importantly, what should the court do to redeem its public image? The first concern about this court is that it spends more time dealing with political cases. Even parliament runs to this court about issues which should be resolved by parliament. In this regard, the concern is that the court is too accessible to politicians. Political parties like the DA have frequented the court about issues which should have been addressed by parliament. This has tarnished the image of the court. Another accusation against the Constitutional Court is its weaponisation by the political elite. Some judges are accused of being too sympathetic to certain politicians while being excessively harsh against others. The removal of Adv. Busisiwe Mkhwebane from her position as Public Protector and the impeachment of Judge Hlophe were interpreted by the public as evidence of the politicisation of the court. The argument was that the court was used to fight political battles. Whether these accusations are true or not is not the main issue. What is concerning is that the court has lost credibility in the public eye. The Zondo Commission had many instances which painted the court in a bad light. Firstly, the public was concerned about the appointment of Chief Justice Raymond Zondo to head the Commission. Part of the reason was that Zondo was not the best candidate that was recommended by the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) to President Ramaphosa. Justice Mandisa Maya received the nod. However, Ramaphosa used his constitutional prerogative and appointed Zondo to be the Chief Justice. As the Commission carried out its work, the Constitutional Court was drawn in. Firstly, Zondo was seen to be lacking objectivity. He was accused of being too harsh against Former President Zuma but too soft on President Ramaphosa. This resulted in Zuma refusing to return to the Commission. Zondo approached the Constitutional Court directly. Not only did he lay a charge against Zuma, but he also prescribed a sentence of two years. This raised eyebrows because the litigant also assumed the position of a judge. In its judgement, the court forced Zuma to return to the Commission. It also removed his right to remain silent – the same right which had been given to other witnesses like the late Dudu Myeni. Once again, the court was accused of being biased. When Justice Sisi Khampepe was appointed Acting Chief Justice, she read her judgement against Zuma in an angry tone. She sentenced Zuma in absentia to 15 months in prison. This resulted in the loss of many lives, loss of jobs, and the destruction of the infrastructure. Many businesses which closed in 2021 never recovered. This tainted the image of the court. Given these instances, the second question about the future of this court becomes relevant. Going forward, the court should take these criticisms seriously, identify those that are factual and act on them, but also consider the rest that have not been substantiated and investigate them to confirm their authenticity. The two main issues that the court should take seriously include too much accessibility to it by politicians and the weaponization of the court by politicians. Failure to address these would further tarnish the court's public image. * Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.

The South African

20 hours ago

• The South African

Cyril Ramaphosa calls for Israel and Iran to talk, not attack

President Cyril Ramaphosa has called for dialogue between Israel and Iran, warning that continued conflict will only lead to further devastation and economic fallout across the globe. Speaking to members of the media on the sidelines of the 30-year anniversary celebration of the Constitutional Court on Friday, Ramaphosa expressed grave concern over the escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly following reports that the United States may join Israel in potential military action against Iran. The White House said on Thursday that President Donald Trump would decide on 'whether or not to go' with US involvement in the conflict in the next two weeks. Having just returned from the G7 summit in Canada, President Ramaphosa cautioned that the world was entering a dangerous period of heightened geopolitical instability. 'The world has become a very dangerous place now, with all these conflicts that are flaring up into the destruction of infrastructure and loss of life. 'We want to continue calling on all actors that dialogue peace-making is the only way in which to solve problems, the disputes that arise in various parts of the country, including the dispute between Israel and Iran now should be solved through dialogue, and we say that it must happen immediately, without resorting to further air strikes to further bombs,' President Ramaphosa said. Ramaphosa emphasised that continued violence was claiming lives and causing ripple effects across the globe, including here at home. 'Lives are being lost, and it is actually having a devastating blow on the economies of the world because there is now uncertainty and prices are beginning to rise. We are already suffering from price rises in our fuel… We want the conflict to come to an end,' he said. Ramaphosa reiterated South Africa's longstanding foreign policy principle of peaceful resolution through diplomacy, warning that prolonged armed conflict would only deepen global instability. According to reports, Iran and Israel traded strikes overnight, with no signs of de-escalation in their weeklong conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his military's objective was to strike all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.

Eyewitness News

a day ago

• Eyewitness News

Bogus tax practitioner gets 3 years behind bars for defrauding SARS out of R60k

JOHANNESBURG - A bogus tax practitioner linked to alleged underworld boss Nafiz Modack will spend three years behind bars for defrauding the South African Revenue Service (SARS) out of R60,000. Faried van der Schyff, who is also a co-accused in Modack's organised crime trial, was sentenced in the Cape Town Regional Court on Friday. It's understood that the 59-year-old posed as a registered tax consultant and illegally submitted documents to SARS, deceiving clients and pocketing the money. He was convicted on five charges, including income tax fraud, violations of the Tax Administration Act, and contravention of the Correctional Services Act. Hawks spokesperson Zinzi Hani said, 'It was reported that van der Schyff committed fraud from 2016 to 2019 by operating illegally as a tax practitioner, without being registered with the South African Revenue Service.' Van der Schyff remains a co-accused in the Western Cape High Court trial involving Modack and 14 others, a case with nearly 3,000 charges, including murder, extortion and racketeering.